Syed FAIZ ALI SHAH Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary/Revenue Commissioner Gilgit-Baltistan

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is a first appeal against order dated 18-04-2014 of the learned Land Acquisition Judge District Ghizer, whereby, the learned trial court has dismissed the petition/reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1984. For ready reference, we reproduce the last two paragraphs of the findings of the learned trial court on issues Nos.12 and 13:--

"Issues Nos. 12 and 13

The onus to prove these issues was on the respondents. In view of my findings on issues Nos. 1 to 3, these issues have become redundant.

For what has been discussed above, and in view of my findings on issues Nos. 1 to 5, the petitioner has failed to prove his claim, therefore, this petition is dismissed being meritless. File after necessary completion, be consigned to record.

Announced:

18-4-2014."

2. Petitioner/appellant filed a petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector Ghizer, who referred the same to the trial Court and the trial Court after completing trial proceedings passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved from impugned order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed appeal in hand. The following is the prayer of the appellant/petitioner:--

"It is therefore humbly prayed that by accepting this appeal the record of the case Civil Suit/Reference No. 01/2010 from the court of Land Acquisition Judge Ghizer, may kindly be called and a decree as prayed for may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant/ petitioner.

Or

Any other relief this honorable court may deem fit according to the merits of the case in favour of petitioner/appellant may also be granted, to meet the ends of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner challenged award No.DK-1(24)/ 3570-71 dated 30-01-2008 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition before the Collector, who referred the case to the trial Court and trial Court gave its findings through impugned judgment. In the petition/reference petitioner challenged that, respondents obtained 2 kanals of land of the petitioner for construction of a link road from main road to Eidgah Gahkuch Paeen. Respondents paid Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) for one kanal of so acquired land, but did not pay for another kanal contending that the same was part of land of respondents as road. Moreover, in view of the petitioners the rates of the compensation per kanal then prevailed in the area were higher than what the respondents paid. So, petitioner received the compensation under protest. Learned trial Court framed following issues in the light of pleading of the parties:-

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file. Instead of taking up the divergent arguments of the parties, we take up the admitted state of affairs between parties, which is helpful in coming to a correct conclusion of the case. In this connection, first we are taking up the gist of the findings of the learned trial Court on all issues, which is in negative, except issues Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13. On issues Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 the learned trial Court has given his findings, that the same were not pressed by the parties before the trial Court. On issues Nos. 12 and 13, the learned trial Court gave its findings, holding that the same had become redundant. Burden of proof of issues Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 10 is on respondents and respondents did not file any appeal or cross objection on the said findings of the trial Court, therefore, the findings of the trial Court on the said issues has attained finality. Onus of proof of issues Nos. 12 and 13 is also on respondents and respondents neither filed any appeal, nor filed any cross objection against the said findings of the trial Court on the said issues, therefore, findings of the trial Court on said issues also attained finality.

5. Petitioner has badly failed to establish any of the issues and the learned trial Court has given its findings against the petitioner. Anyhow, in the case in hand two documents, ExP-1 and ExP-5 are very important as contents of both the said documents are almost admitted. We find the words, written in the said two documents. While assessing the compensation rates of the said piece of land, the learned trial Court has failed to take the notice of the same. We therefore, set aside the impugned judgment, remand the case back to the trial Court with direction to re-assess the compensation amounts regarding said 1 Kanal land of the petitioner, in the light of contents of above referred two documents. Appeal allowed according. Parties to bear their own costs. File.

HBT/62/GB Case remanded.